pose. There are 32 million acres of Federal wildlife refuges which are managed as wilderness areas as much as is consistent with wildlife maintenance. The more than 21 million acres administered by the National Park Service are closed to commercial use and development except for limited exceptions in very limited areas. This is a result both of policy and because "the most popular features of many parks are concentrated in relatively small areas." It would be a conservative estimate to set 4 million acres of National Park Service land as wilderness lands and so administered. (All figures given, plus the preceding quotation, are from "The Federal Lands, Their Use and Management," published in 1957 by Resources for the Future, Inc.) Therefore, we have now more than 21 million acres of Federal land within the contiguous borders of the United States administered primarily as wilderness. This is not the total wilderness area; it is the total which is legally protected as wilderness. Other millions of acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Defense Department are true wilderness areas and will remain so for many years. (Not included here are Alaska's 365 million acres. Prior to admission to statehood, Alaska was 99.9 percent federally owned, and the change of a few percentage points would still leave at least 200 or 300 million acres of pure wilderness under Federal ownership.) We are not bereft of wilderness, nor are we likely to be in the future. The various agencies of the Federal Government charged with wilderness preservation have zealously fulfilled their responsibility for many years, and there is no reason to believe they will not continue to do so. The present administration, moreover, admits of some flexibility, which would not be possible under the rigid specifications of the wilderness preservation bill. Cast-iron rules for the administration of 20 or 30 million acres would be most unwise. In addition, this bill would set up a "National Wilderness Preservation Council" and provide it with statutory authority to hamper, harass, and hamstring public and private agencies alike. It would be exempt from public accountability for its actions because its function would be only to "advise" and not to administrate, and all of its members, public officials and private citizens alike, would be part of the executive branch of Government, appointed by the President. If there is anything this Nation does not need, it is still another agency operating in the limbo of the executive department. I am strongly opposed to S. 1123 as unnecessary legislation and as legislation which would impede the progress of our Western States toward full economic development and responsibility. STATEMENT OF THE NAVAJO TRIBE OF INDIANS, WINDOW ROCK, ARIZ., Hon. JAMES C. MURRAY, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, MARCH 31, 1959. MY DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: I would like to take this opportunity to file with your committee a statement on behalf of the Navajo Tribe of Indians on the newest version of the wilderness bill, S. 1123. The Navajo Tribe of Indians is opposed to the concept of a wilderness preservation system which carries in it the basic underlying philosophy that Indian lands stand on the same footing with Federal public domain and forest areas. We are glad that a requirement of consent of the tribes concerned has been included in S. 1123, before their lands may be summarily taken from them. The Navajo Tribe has struggled long and hard to have road development on our vast reservation. Only recently have we met with some success. We faced formidable obstacles-not the least of which was the designation of three vast areas on our reservation as "roadless," by a former Commissioner of Indian Affairs without even consulting our tribal leaders. This is an example of the frustrations we face when we want development of our lands and resources. And yet some say Indian lands are not part of the Federal domain. Turning now to uses authorized by the wilderness bill, it appears to us the philosophy of this bill is to throw a clamp on any future development of natural resources in the West. The status quo appears to be accepted, but that is as far as one may go. Development is discouraged, in fact practically made impossible. The Indians have a stake in development of the West and we do not want to see our economy stopped cold in its tracks. Certainly, the very fine management practices in effect for these areas have done a remarkable job of preserving the economic value of our wilderness country. Intelligent use with an economic purpose appeals to us. Although the West may be "young" in spirit, I feel sure we need take the back seat to no one in mature resources management and development. The present, forward-looking administration of these areas should continue. We see no reason for imposing a "super" Council over the very fine administration of our national park areas. Perhaps some new parks are needed, but couldn't this better be accomplished by allowing the National Park Service sufficient funds to acquire and manage new areas? Section 3(b) of the new bill (S. 1123) is the dangerous key to the proposal. It completely shuts off commercial use of areas taken by stranglehold into the system. The continued growth of a dynamic economy in the West seems to me to be dependent upon continued exploration for and intelligent development of our natural resources. For these reasons, the Navajo Tribe opposes the adoption of the wilderness bill in its entirety. SIR: The New Mexico Oil & Gas Association presented a statement in regard to S. 4028 at the Albuquerque hearing November 14, 1958. Inasmuch as the new natural wilderness preservation system bill is S. 1123, we respectfully request that the statement and the maps used in conjunction with that statement be made a part of the record in your committee, to be studied in connection with S. 1123. Very truly yours, FRED W. MOXEY, Executive Director. STATEMENT OF THE WILCOX (ARIZ.) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Hon. BARRY GOLDWATER, U.S. Senator, Washington, D.C. MARCH 31, 1959. DEAR SENATOR GOLDWATER: The board of directors of the Wilcox Chamber of Commerce at its meeting on March 31, 1959, unanimously passed a motion to go on record as unalterably opposing the U.S. Senate bill No. 1123 otherwise known as the wilderness bill. It is the feeling of the board that from an economic standpoint, the bill is most inadvisable and contrary to the multiple-use principle in management of Federal land. Very sincerely and respectfully yours, REX EMRICK, Secretary-Manager. STATEMENT OF THE ROOSEVELT COUNCIL (ARIZ.) BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA CHAIRMAN AND COMMITTEE, APRIL 1, 1959. GENTLEMAN: The Roosevelt Council, Inc., Boy Scouts of America, again wishes to go on record as being wholeheartedly in favor of the general principles related to the establishment and perpetuation of wilderness areas We believe that both the economic and recreational interests can be protected by proper administration. Foremost among Arizona's resources are its "last frontiers" for recreation Certainly a portion should be preserved down through the centuries. In behalf of our registered membership of over 20,000 boys and adults, we urge the most careful consideration for the protection of areas which can not be replaced by man. We are pledged in our own program to assist all agencies in the conservation of our natural resources. Respectfully submitted. GEORGE F. MILLER, Scout Executive. STATEMENT OF THE TUCSON (ARIZ.) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE We believe that there exists today a sad and completely unrealistic tendency on the part of some people to play a game called "Let's pretend that man doesn't exist." Man does exist, and the human race is multiplying more rapidly than at any time in the history of the world. While the disappearance of an animal or bird species from the earth is deplored, the needs of man must have priority. The several wilderness areas already established in Arizona are sufficient. Additional wilderness areas are in no way essential to the furtherance of practical scientific purpose. Wilderness areas provide specialized recreation available only to a comparatively hardy few. The so-called wilderness bill would authorize the setting aside of additional portions of our mountain watershed areas for a single purpose as opposed to the well-established principle of multiple use. The burgeoning economy and exploding population of our State, now and in the future, will require maximum utilization of our watersheds under scientific management to promote water runoff and foster outdoor recreation for all people, and also to insure the future of our livestock and forest products industries. Well-planned multiple use management of these watersheds is a positive requirement, and it appears extremely unwise to encourage any Federal legislation which will deprive the State of the full benefits of the renewable natural resources within it boundaries. RESOLUTION OF THE TWIN FALLS (IDAHO) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Whereas there was introduced in the present session of Congress by Senator Humphrey and 17 others, a bill, S. 1123, entitled the wilderness preservation bill; and Whereas hearings are scheduled to be held in Phoenix, Ariz., April 2, 1959, on this bill; and Whereas if enacted, this bill would remove from any possible use vast areas of our country, particularly the western section of the United States; and Whereas much of the area in Idaho that could conceivably be affected is now used for livestock grazing, mining, lumber operations and recreation; and Whereas such a large percentage of the land in Idaho is now owned by the Federal Government and therefore exempt from taxation; and Whereas if enacted this bill would create a still larger Federal tax burden and Federal employee list with little or no constructive purpose being served: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the board of directors of the Twin Falls Chamber of Commerce is strongly opposed to S. 1123 or any similar legislation. RESOLUTION OF THE FLAGSTAFF (ARIZONA) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE The board of directors of the Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce, in regular meeting, agreed that Whereas the established multiple-use policy of federal land administration embodying the principle of "the greatest good to the greatest number" has proven successful and sound, and Whereas the proposed legislation favors single-purpose, restricted use, thereby limiting availability to only those financially capable, and Whereas abundant evidence is available to show that the growth of the Southwest, including Coconino County, Arizona, will continue to accelerate as our National population increases, and Whereas abundant evidence is available to show that public interest in a variety of historical, recreational, and other outdoor activities is manifest in everincreasing proportions in our great State of Arizona, and Whereas the establishment of one more "council" into the Federal system, with no real authority, will increase costs considerably and further complicate administrative procedure without any necessary function involved: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce That (1) In view of all available evidence, U.S. Senate bill 1123 fails to consider "the greatest good to the greatest number of our citizens," which is a basic concept in the philosophy of our great country, and (2) Enactment of U.S. Senate bill 1123 to establish a national wilderness preservation system is vigorously opposed as completely unnecessary and contrary to the proven national policy of multiple use of resources. STATEMENT OF THE PONCHA SPRINGS GRANGE No. 417 SALIDA, COLO., March 25, 1959. SENATE INTERIOR COMMITTEE, Care of Mr. Ben Stong, Washington, D.O. DEAR SIR: In reference to Senate bill 1176 to establish on public land of the United States a national wilderness preservation system, our opinion is S. 1176 would curtail development of our irrigation systems, grazing, harvesting of lumber products, mineral resources, etc.; would abolish the present multiple-use system for the benefit of a few selfish people who are physically able to walk long distances over rugged terrain. This sets progress back 100 years. Our ancestors have suffered many hardships and deprivations to settle this country, and take it from a wilderness area to a civilized community, when homes and cities have been built, which gives more people an opportunity to live and progress. We favor continued advancement of our civilization; equal privileges for all law-abiding people; manmade reservoirs which contribute to our irrigation; domestic water supply plus electric power, also, affords more recreation facilities for handicapped and senior citizens, also, many others who do not have ability or opportunity to walk to natural primitive areas; manmade structures are responsible for more fish; game and recreation resources than native wilderness. By a multiple-use system, more people have an opportunity to enjoy resources of the country. We see no need for new agencies, or the employment of more people at the taxpaying public expense, as we now have many agencies dedicated to conservation of public resources. In this cause, more especially Forest Service, soil conservation service in cooperation with extension service and soil conservation districts. We are opposed to Senate bill 1176, and urge this protest be made a part of the record at public hearings in Phoenix, Ariz. on April 2, 1959. Sincerely yours, PONCHA SPRINGS GRANGE No. 417. STATEMENT OF J. L. MERRITT, PRESIDENT, NEW MEXICO ASSOCIATION OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS The New Mexico Association of Soil Conservation Districts joins with the National Association of Soil Conservation Districts, presenting a statement in behalf of this and our State association. The NASCD is an association of the 15,000 soil conservation district supervisors of America. All officers and directors serve without pay, as do the supervisors who are elected State officials, charged with the conservation and development of the soil and water resources of America. The NASCD is an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization whose primary concern is the conservation and orderly development of America's land and water resources through means of local self-government. The Nation's soil conservation districts have over 1,794,000 cooperators who have conservation plans on 539,562,000 acres of America's farmland. I would like to enter for the records the public lands policy of NASCD as my testimony will be built around this policy statement.1 In the preamble of the public lands policy statement I would like to note the NASCD holds that public lands are held in trust and must be devoted to the highest possible use for the permanent good of all the people. We approve of wilderness areas as today provided by administrative procedures of the various public land administering agencies, recognizing such areas as one of the multiple uses. However, we oppose the present system wherein it disallows watershed protection work being done. The phenomenal population growth in the West is demanding additional water for urban, industrial, military, and irrigation uses. This increased demand for water is dependent on public land watersheds, some of which may lie in present or future wilderness areas. The opportunity to develop and conserve these waters in a usable form is imperative. The benefits of preserving wilderness and wild areas cannot be doubted, however, forest and other public lands properly managed in conjunction with a multiple use program will be more beneficial to more people; and will furnish the average sportsman more game, and more scenic enjoyment. The NASCD foresees the possibility in the present bills of encroachment on private landowners' rights, public land users' rights, and above all, an encroachment on States rights. Steel and concrete are today covering thousands of acres of America's most productive agricultural lands, in the form of expanding cities, industries, and superhighways. America's population growth is ever surging westward, making the demand on public lands and public land watersheds ever more demanding. Because of the foregoing statements, we feel that we must vigorously oppose the passage of any of the wilderness bills as we now understand them. Wilderness committee superimposed to advise and influence present administrators of public lands is not needed, a nuisance and an unnecessary public expense. There is a committee appointed to study the recreational values of public lands and wilderness areas. Why pass legislation prior to their report? There can be no facilities provided for fire protection. Wilderness areas can be expanded by a decree of the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of Interior. An act of Congress in opposition is needed within 120 days to keep these areas out. Our voice is small comparatively which is not to our advantage. RESOLUTION OF THE NEW MEXICO WOOL GROWERS, INC. Whereas national legislation and regulations establishing wilderness preservation areas are contrary to the multiple-use principle in management of Federal land; and Whereas wholesale withdrawals of public lands would be detrimental to the general tax structure and limit and reduce the normal operations and development of the following industries: mining, timbering, reclamation, grazing, oil and gas and dependent service industries in the Western States: Therefore be it Resolved, That we oppose the wilderness preservation system proposal as an infringement on the administrative flexibility of the present governing bodies subordinating policy decisions to a small council of nonrepresentative users; and be it further Resolved, That we oppose all legislation and regulation not in accord with the multiple-use principle. STATEMENT OF EARL E. HORRELL, GLOBE, ARIZ. My national forest permit for grazing cattle includes land use within a designated wilderness area. I have been an owner and operator on part of the Superstition wilderness area for over 30 years. My father and grandfather preceded me. Our tenure over part of the area preceded the establishment of the Forest Service, and the designated wilderness area. I would like to further identify myself. At present I am vice chairman of the National Forest Committee for the American National Cattlemen's Associa 1 Previously printed in this document. (See p. 402.) |